Your Mouth is Moving, But What Are You Saying?

Our communication is comprised of much more than the words we speak – and our nonverbal cues often give us away if we are being inconsistent with what’s coming out of our mouth. We think of Albert Mehrabian’s 55/38/7 rule (55 percent nonverbal, 38 percent vocal, seven percent verbal) for nonverbal communication. However, it has since been critiqued and challenged based on the nature of the study (and the specific scenarios it was measuring: when the nonverbal channel and the verbal channel are incongruent). Thus, his research is indeed useful when incongruency is at play (e.g., a grimacing face doesn’t equate to the “I’m fine” vocalization).

This helpful insight aside, what about all the other scenarios we witness each – and every – day? The big presentation, the influential leader, the flustered colleague on the other end of the phone, the <insert one of the many other scenarios here>? It’s no surprise our verbal and nonverbal communication play a big role. Rather than focusing on the minute detail of how much influence each communication bucket has, let’s focus on actionable insights for communicating what you set out to communicate. That’s the bottom line, right?

Set your intent.
Is your intent to educate, to motivate, or to influence? Depending upon what you’re aiming to achieve, you need to adjust both your verbal and nonverbal communication practices. (Ah, yes, this comes back to expectations. Let’s not have individuals leave the room guessing.)

Decide how you want to be perceived.
Let’s say I’m aiming to influence (my intent). I need acceptance on new policies being implemented and I want buy-in, as well as understanding, from my audience. I’m also an executive at the company.

Do I:

• Read my PowerPoint (or notes), slide by slide, and ask if there are questions at the end (think Mr. Roboto)?

or

• Do I set the expectations for the meeting, maintain my agenda (also in front of attendees), and simply use the PowerPoint, or notes, as a reference?

Which will make you think I actually believe what I’m saying, and am bought into the information being shared? Simple.

(Having a trusted colleague or confidant to run things by – i.e., your presentation – will help you not miss these important communicative measures.)

Consider all levels.
To whom are you speaking? What language are you using? Speak to – not above – your audience. We call this “inflated vocabulary.” Does your language get your point across clearly, or does it confuse your audience further? I’m not saying dumb-down your messaging, but make it easy-to-remember and use language that causes understanding, not confusion. (Yes, as a leader/senior executive, you need to be knowledgeable and intelligent, but it’s typically the manager’s job to teach and train people – why non-executive managers are so important!! Thus, know what you’re talking about, but speak in a manner that allows each and every person to take away your message with profound impact.)

Consider multiple learning forms.
Some of us our visual learners – others are auditory, others reading/writing, and yet others, kinesthetic. If your intent is to influence, should you not want to influence each and every person in the room? Here are some guidelines for varying styles that can be incorporated into any presentation – especially those you find particularly important.

Visual Learners: Prefer to see information and need to visualize relationship between ideas. [Provide charts and graphics – show relationships between various points.]

Auditory Learners: Prefer to hear information rather than reading it, or seeing it displayed. [Give listeners a chance to repeat your points back to you – or someone else. You can do this through asking questions and calling on the audience for answers.]

Reading/Writing Learners: Learn best when reading and writing – interacting with text is more powerful for them than hearing or seeing images.
[Provide quizzes or allow them to write down what they learned. An easy way to do this: provide handouts.]

Kinesthetic Learners: Hands-on, experiential learners. They learn best by doing.
[Role playing – if the environment allows it and/or facilitate a way for them to write down what you’re saying.]

Next week I’ll discuss multiple ways you can leverage your body language to support your presence – the presence you want to exude – particularly in our digital age.

What's the Difference? Leadership + Management

This week I was asked to explain the difference between leadership and management, and this is a fair question. Often, I use “leadership” and “management’ as interchangeable terms. Yet, there have been ample disagreements about the definition of each over the years, and the innate variance the terms hold. Thus, it seems helpful to reveal some key differences, and explain why the pairing of the two is most helpful to achieve our interpersonal, team, and corporate goals.

I should note, first and foremost, we are not comparing apples to apples here. Leadership is a notion, practice, term, ideology, etc., that has many spins, approaches, and theoretical concepts. In fact, “There are almost as many definitions of Leadership as there are persons who have attempted to define the concept.” (Stogdill, 1974)

To further make this point, let’s take just two definitions of Leadership (from a lengthy list):

• Leadership is the process of influencing the activities of an organized group toward goal achievement (Rauch & Behling, 1984, p.46)
• Leadership is “the ability of an individual to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organization…” (House et al., 1999, p. 184)

OK, back to our core premise: what is the difference between leadership and management?

Managers are concerned with doing things right. Their primary goal is to be efficient, and to make their teams efficient. Conversely, leaders are concerned with doing the right things. In this context, the “right things” means “to be effective” i.e., effectiveness.

Does this mean there’s no crossover? Of course not. But understanding the core can help us be conscience about the rhetorical nuances. (And their undeniable synergy, regardless of the mutual exclusivity.) It may be useful for you to know if your company places more importance on management or leadership. Further, you may want to understand if, as a manager, you will also be awarded credit for leading, not just managing.

While the core of these terms differs, this does not mean a single person cannot possess the skills to be both a manager and a leader.  Great minds have differentiated between the two – from core processes to intended outcomes. But rather than picking apart what each isn’t, let me give you some distinct differences for your own comprehension.

In the spirit of simplicity, I liken management and leadership to one of my runs in Central Park. Leadership is the long game – that is what’s going to get me home. My intended path, my pre-determined endurance, or the element-appropriate workout gear.  Management is what I do to test my agility, make sure my ankles don’t turn on rocks, and ensure I’ve taken the steps to prevent a muscle strain.

If my analogy didn’t do it for you…

Leaders influence relationships. There’s a defined line between leaders and followers – leaders are followed joyfully. Leaders seek change, and intentions are often very clear. Leaders are often charismatic, insightful, motivational, well-spoken, and practice truthfulness.

Managers tend to identify as authority figures and it's not uncommon to associate subordinates with managers. Management is correlated with a defined goal: team members are responsible for the selling of goods or services. Metrics are recorded and KPIs are crafted. Managers and their teams are also very closely correlated. It is rare to see a manager who has very little working knowledge of the task for which their subordinate is responsible. The idea of management is to provide a connected link, resource, and subject matter expert to the subordinate. 

Point is this: they're different, but I'd argue you need both (and that they work best in tandem). Why do you think a manager may be more effective with leadership traits, or vice versa? Understanding this for ourselves, and for the environments in which we work, will only lead to self-realization and further contentment among those we serve. 

Failure: Don't Be the Cause

People fail. Employees fail. It’s a fact of life. However…

The problem is often assumed to be that of the employees. But what if we were wrong? What if it was our fault? (Assume “our” classifies the boss or manager in this scenario.)

Spoiler: an employee’s poor performance can be blamed mainly on his or her boss.  

This syndrome has been titled “set-up-to-fail.” Jean François Manzoni and Jean-Louis Barsoux researched the topic at length. I’ll review the basics to help managers be aware of the syndrome itself and, if all seems too familiar i.e., you’re living the examples shared, I’ll provide recommendations to help you address.

The negative cycle of set-up-to-fail is just that, cyclical. Destructive behaviors from a boss fuel less favorable behaviors from the subordinate, and with each stroke the synergy between two individuals, splinter.

What happens is this:
When workers are perceived to be mediocre, they often continue to achieve those expectations. Namely, a team member (subordinate) may make an error. It could be the first, but the manager feels it’s a slippery slope if the error is not addressed. Regrettably, the way of “addressing” is to tighten the rope. The boss’ hope is to boost performance by managing closely. Instead, the scrutiny causes the employee to be insecure and he or she feels there’s a lack of trust and confidence in them.

In time, the employee doubts their performance and they lose motivation. If the manager is going to correct, critique, or minimize, it’s no wonder ownership diminishes. Sadly, this feeds into the syndrome. With absence of enthusiasm or performance, the manager sees this as proving them right. The team member is ill-equipped.

The real kicker here is this: Employees whom you’ve identified as weak performers are living down to your expectations! Let’s look at a standard flow of this self-fulfilling process.

The relationship is workable/functional. ---> Something happens that’s unfavorable (a deadline is missed or a performance was lackluster) thus you begin to micromanage. ---> The employee starts to doubt him or herself due to your (the manager’s) confidence in delivery. They begin to avoid making decisions (aren’t you going to make them, anyway?). ---> Manager views this behavior as proof of mediocracy and tighten the rope further.

The behaviors go ‘round and ‘round and worsen with each spin.

What's the cost of set-up-to-fail?

• Employees are defeated (no longer ask for help, or offer suggestions, and grow defensive).

• The organization no longer gets the most from their employee(s) who suffer from this.

• Team cohesion decreases as more effective members are asked to take on more responsibilities, and the weak are given menial tasks. Unfair separation of work causes tension. There's also discomfort watching one team member be belittled.

• The boss/manager loses energy. He or she is spending it (energy & time) in destructive ways --following the "lesser employee" around. They may even earn a harmful reputation (e.g., micromanagement, being unfair, etc.).

How do you reverse this situation?

You don’t want your team to fail. It hurts you and it hurts the company for which you work. Here are some tips to help you reverse and/or avoid the SUTF syndrome:

• Set expectations early. Recorded expectations may be my favorite proactive step in the workplace. It demonstrates transparency, ownership (for all parties), and it minimizes ambiguity. If someone doesn’t follow-through, there’s a clear record.

• Convey openness. This is a big one. If you say you’re "open to openness" – even difficult conversations – and then never set the stage for these discussions, that’s on you! Consistency, and following through, is important and helpful for building a functional working relationship.

• What are the facts? The moment you feel someone is under-performing, or they missed a deadline, review the facts. Were there expectations? If there were, did you set them to accomplish a task they weren’t qualified for? Should this change your opinion of them as a person? [This is not a feeling-based assessment. This is about challenging your perceptions with facts.]

The truth is, the difficulty of undoing full-blown SUTF syndrome can be challenging. People are more perceptive than we give them credit for. They know when they’re part of an out-group and they know when there’s no trust.

If you think you have team members who are wearing the SUTF cap, there are clear steps to take to help the two (or more) of you get back to a healthy working paradigm. If you want to make sure you’re not falling into the trap, drop me a line. We can come up with a clear and actionable plan that’s tailored to your team.

Motivation Hygiene Theory & Steps to Job Enrichment

Last week I shared how to motivate your teams, and promised we'd revisit the subject. The second half to this topic is to understand just what causes job dissatisfaction and how job enrichment can contribute to the motivation you seek. The Motivation Hygiene Theory suggests that factors involved in producing motivation and job satisfaction are completely separate from the factors that lead to job dissatisfaction. Let me explain.

Motivational factors, as discussed last week, are intrinsic to the job and include achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself, responsibility, and growth or advancement. Spoiler: these are highly correlated to job enrichment! Conversely, the dissatisfaction factors that are extrinsic to the job include company policy and administration, supervision, interpersonal relationships, working conditions, salary, status, and security. 

We often think if something isn't satisfactory, it's dissatisfactory. This theory, however, offers a distinct separation between the two, noting the factors that cause job satisfaction, and completely different factors that cause job dissatisfaction. The latter are known as "hygiene factors."

I thought to myself, what is the benefit of knowing the nuances between intrinsic motivation and external hygiene factors? I think it's not only for the edification of the manager - there are many factors which can be altered - but understanding these areas can help managers know where to dedicate their time and which battles are worth picking. Here's a list of job dissatisfaction contributors that managers should seek to remedy (reference step 1). 

At a glance, company policy and administration caused the most dissatisfaction in the hygiene factor scale (followed by supervision, AKA not getting along with supervisors), while extreme satisfaction came from achievement, and close behind that, recognition. Alleviating job dissatisfaction does not equate to motivation! Hence the need for job enrichment. 

The motivation-hygiene theory suggests that work be enriched to bring about effective utilization of personnel. The next key word that we need to take note of is job enrichment: job enrichment provides the opportunity for the employee's psychological growth. [Note: job enrichment is not to be confused with job enlargement. The latter actually defines making the job structurally bigger, and can decrease motivational factors.] 

If you're facing motivational issues on your team, think about ways a job can be enriched; approach the topic with the underlying belief the jobs can be changed (the only other resolve is sustained unhappiness and underperformance); review your ideas to ensure there aren't any hygiene suggestions -- influencing motivation is more sustainable; eliminate any horizontal loading suggestions. [An example of horizontal loading is something like "challenge the employee to double their output each day." This doesn't motivate, this hinders.] Use this list to guide your plan for influencing motivation. 

Here is a synopsis of Herzberg's principles of "vertical job loading" which contribute to job enrichment, and consequently motivation, from his primary research:

• Give a person a complete unit of work -- associated motivational factors are responsibility, achievement, and recognition
• Grant additional authority, providing job freedom -- associated motivational factors are responsibility, achievement, and recognition
• Increase accountability of individuals for own work -- associated motivational factors are responsibility and accountability
• Introduce new and more difficult tasks not previously handled -- associated motivational factors are growth and learning 
• Assign individuals specific or specialized tasks, enabling them to become experts -- associated motivational factors are responsibility, growth, and advancement 

We don't want to confuse hygiene factors with what actually causes motivation (the list you just read) since the very nature of motivators, as opposed to hygiene factors, is they have a longer-term effect on employees' attitudes. 

If you sense your team is suffering from motivational deficits, get brainstorming!